Disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann, Praia da Luz, Portugal 3rd May 2007On 28 December 2013, the Sunday Times issued an on-line "apology for any distress caused" while accepting that its readers may have misunderstood certain aspects of the articles dated 23 October 2013 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) with regard to the "Oakley Report" commissioned by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited”.The "Oakley Report", including a set of "eFit" images, was commissioned at a cost of approximately £500,000 by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” which was compiled within a six month period during 2008 and completed in November 2008, by a team of private investigators headed by Henri Exton, former MI5 Undercover Operations Chief, on behalf of Oakley International.The Sunday Times statement / apology is published here:http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece“Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” is a private limited company which obtains funding from a combination of public donations and the sale of sundry items such as wristbands, luggage labels etc. Its directors include Madeleine McCann’s parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, Kate McCann’s uncle, Brian Kennedy, family friends Jon Corner and Michael Linnett and lawyer, Edward Smethurst.More information about the company can be sought here:http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06248215/MADELEINES-FUND-LEAVING-NO-STONE-UNTURNED-LIMITED/company-summaryThe aims and purposes of the company are published here:http://findmadeleine.com/support/index.htmlThe Sunday Times’ statement clarifies for its readers that the set of “eFit” images contained within the Oakley Report, (but NOT the full Oakley Report itself), were in fact passed by the “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” to both the Policia Judicária in Portugal and Leicestershire Police in October 2009.(At this time both of the above police forces had already shelved their active investigations into Madeleine’s disappearance.)The eFits were, by implication, therefore, only withheld from the AUTHORITIES for a minimum of 11 months (but possibly up to 17 months, depending on the exact date of the eFits having been obtained).The eFits were, also by implication, withheld from the PUBLIC by ALL parties, including “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” until October 2013 - a period of about five years.This was also intimated by DCI Andy Redwood appearing on BBC Crimewatch in October 2013, when he stated very clearly that the eFits used in Scotland Yard’s public appeals during October 2013, had never previously appeared in the public domain until that time, although they had been in existence for some years prior.The Sunday Times’ statement also clarifies that the FULL Oakley Report commissioned and paid for by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited”, and compiled by Henri Exton and his team of private investigators on behalf of Oakley International, was only passed by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” to the Metropolitan Police in August 2011, when Scotland Yard opened a fresh review / investigation, known as “Operation Grange” into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Praia da Luz, Portugal in May 2007.The full "Oakley Report" was, by implication, withheld by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” from the AUTHORITIES for a period of almost three years after it was completed.To date, the full content of the “Oakley Report” has not been made public, and presumably forms part of the ongoing Scotland Yard investigation, Operation Grange.It has been made clear, on several occasions by DCI Redwood that the “Smith sighting” and its associated eFits are of crucial significance to Operations Grange’s ongoing investigation. Indeed, the Smith sighting has been described by him as a “revelation moment” in the investigative process.The Sunday Times, however, NEITHER apologises for, NOR refutes any of the following statements contained within its articles dated October 23 2013("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News): That the Oakley Report recommended that the Smith sighting eFits should be “released without delay" (November 2008).  That the Oakley Report raised questions about "anomalies" in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends. That a source close to “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” said that the McCanns and their friends said that the Oakley Report was “hypercritical of the people involved ... it just wouldn’t have been conducive to the investigation to have the Report publicly declared because ... the newspapers would have been all over it and it would have been completely distracting”. That the Oakley Report contained sensitive information about Madeleine's sleeping patterns.  That the Oakley Report raised the possibility that Madeleine could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of twounsecured doors.  That the Oakley Report stated the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded that “the Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting ofMaddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting.”  That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” wanted to pursue information about the earlier sighting by Tanner, in spite of therecommendations of the Oakley Report. That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” deemed it too expensive to investigate both the Tanner and the Smith sightings fully. That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” deemed it necessary to threaten legal action against the authors of the Report. That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” had "silenced" Exton and his investigators, by way of a letter from lawyers binding them to confidentiality. That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” prevented Exton and his investigators from handing the Oakley Report to Scotland Yard when requested to by them, without the Fund's explicit permission. That the McCanns threatened the Report's authors with Legal Action if the Oakley Report was to be made public.  That the Smith sighting eFits were not included in the book "Madeleine" written by Kate McCann and published in 2011, although the Smith sightingitself was cited and seven OTHER eFits were included in the book.  That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” have stated that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed on to Scotland Yard.In light of the above omissions from the Sunday Times’ apology to its readers, one has to assume that, at this point in time, the Sunday Times is standing by the content of its articles dated October 23 2013 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News), and that the apology refers only to the fact that readers may have been misled into thinking that the eFits may have been withheld by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” from the authorities for a period of longer than eleven months.DiscussionAt first glance, the Sunday Times apology may appear to the undiscerning as a “retraction” of its articles published on 23 October 2013. However, it is very far from that.The apology is only to the newspaper’s readers who may have misunderstood that, although the Smith sighting eFits were NOT PUBLICISED by any party, including “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” for almost 5 years after their production, they were passed to police authorities in the UK and Portugal after 11 months.Neither of the two police authorities was actively investigating Madeleine’s disappearance at the time they received the eFits and the eFits were only eventually made public by Scotland Yard in October 2013.The Sunday Times makes no apology or retraction regarding any other issues raised or statements made in the articles.It now transpires that Scotland Yard deems that these Smith sighting eFits are of crucial significance to their investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance, which leaves one to wonder why there were not publicised “without delay” in November 2008, on Exton’s recommendation.It appears that “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” believed that following the Smith sighting lead would prove too expensive; yet, at the very least, it would have only been a maximum of half a day’s work for the webmaster of FindMadeleine.com to add the eFit images with a paragraph of explanatory text to the website; i.e. not so expensive for a Fund whose net worth in 2008 was over £1 million, one would have thought.“Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” also believed that the publications of the Smith sighting eFits would prove distracting to the ongoing search for Madeleine and preferred to pursue information relating to the Tanner sighting.Yet, it transpires only this week in the media (Mirror), that Leicestershire police may well have identified the “Tanner Sighting” man as an innocent tourist carrying his own daughter as long ago as 2008, as a result of questionnaires that were sent out to tourists who used the Ocean Club “night crèche” facility during the week the McCanns were on holiday there.One has to assume that these questionnaires were sent out before Leicestershire police shelved their active investigations, and therefore well before “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” passed the eFits to them in October 2009.Scotland Yard has also since confirmed that the man in question has now been formally identified, interviewed and photographed, and that they also believe that Jane Tanner’s sighting should be disregarded.To date (30 December 2013) the “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” official website, is still displaying artist’s impressions of the Tanner sighting: http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.htmlAlthough the Smith sighting eFits were displayed on the website from late October 2013 until just before Christmas, they have now been replaced by a Christmas message from Kate McCann.So, as ever in this most bizarre of cases, one is left with the rather unpleasant sense that someone, somewhere has been trying very hard over a very long period of time to hinder the investigation leading to the true facts behind the disappearance of Madeleine McCann from being known.One can only hope that, in time and for the sake of Madeleine herself, missing now for almost 7 years, the full facts will be known very soon, and that those responsible for her disappearance will finally be brought to justice.Additional notes:The Smith family, who originally sighted a man carrying a child similar in appearance to Madeleine McCann down a street in Praia da Luz at about 10pm on 3rd May 2007, made formal statements to the Policia Judicária in Portugal on 26 May 2007, about 3 weeks after Madeleine went missing.Mr Smith’s initial statement was followed up by an additional statement to his local police force in Drogheda, County Louth, Eire in September 2007, which highlighted some physical similarities between the man he had seen and Madeleine’s father, Gerry McCann.These statements have been in the public domain since August 2008 and can be read in full here:http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htmThe chief detective initially investigating Madeleine’s disappearance in Portugal was Gonçalo Amaral. Amaral became aware of the significance of this sighting early on in the investigation and was in the process of arranging for the Smith family to return to Portugal in late September 2007 to provide eFits of the man they had seen. However, Amaral was removed from the case on 2 October 2007, 12 days after Martin Smith’s second statement, and the Smith family were not re-interviewed by the Policia Judicária.Ironically the McCanns are currently suing Amaral for libel in Lisbon over the publication of his book, which is largely based on the police files that have been in the public domain since August 2008. It is their belief, among other issues, that the publication of the book may have hindered the search for their daughter, Madeleine.The final day of the trial is due to take place on 7 January 2014.It is perhaps a moot point at this stage that the Smith sighting eFits were not publicised until very recently, more than six and a half years after Madeleine went missing.Just like the man Jane Tanner saw that night, the man the Smith family saw may well also have been an innocent resident or tourist carrying his own child home after an evening out or at work.It is also possible however that the child he was carrying could have been Madeleine. Operation Grange has not to date released any updates specific to this matter to the public.Further reading: McCann PJ Files: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ McCann Files: http://www.mccannfiles.com/

@Over The Hill wrote:Thanks for all your comments. Sorry some of you think I'm talking nonsense

The problem with quoting from the police interviews is that it wouldn't be relevant in the context of a TV news bulletin. News programmes on BBC, ITN and Sky don't tend to do investigations of their own - these are the domain of the Panorama/World In Action type shows. Even then there are restrictions on what can be said because of libel laws

Also, despite all their resources the PJ weren't able to solve the case and ended up shelving it, and Scotland Yard haven't cracked it yet despite 2 years on the job. Why do you think that one episode of Panorama could? Remember that it's not TV's job to solve crimes - that's for the police. TV programmes can't hint that someone might be guilty of something, potentially defamation again

Had the BBC repeated the ST story, they would have been dicing with defamation had it turned out to be untrue. All Beeb journalists are trained not to to pass on press stories that might be libellous

News programmes deal with facts

Re the tendency in the written press to describe the PJ as bumbling, incompetent etc, I don't recall a single instance of a TV or radio news bulletin doing that

However, reporting the disappearance as an abduction is poor practice and should have been corrected straight away. As I say, broadcast news deals in facts

Also remember that everyone is assumed to be innocent until they have been through a court process, so insinuations aren't acceptable in a broadcast news programme

The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous). And because the libel laws in Portugal are different from those in the UK, it could in theory not be libellous in PT but libellous here (because in Pt it has to be disproved by the claimants, here it's the other way round)

When something concrete happens, I can assure you that the TV and radio news teams will report it

You have not been able to refute the truth that there are many unreported facts in this case - this case which has been the biggest ever crime story in the last 100 years. The UK Media have reported and speculated on all manner of things but have studiously facts such as what has been said at the libel trial in Portugal. Either they are being censored, or they are cowards or they have incompetent. They cannot have made a rational decision to ignore such facts which will obviously be of huge interest in the UK.

As you concede BBC and other TV companies have undertaken investigative documentaries into the McCann case so your claim that the rogatory interviews cannot be used by them because they don't fit in news bulletins is pure hokum. And you are wrong about Sky - they do do background documentaries and have done so on the McCann case.

In any case, you clearly have no understanding of TV news. It includes lot of speculation and surmise by reporters who give viewers the background to news.

Reporting on clear discrepancies in evidence is not libel. Neither is reporting on libel trials.

No one is saying the UK Media have to make any insinuations. All they have to do is report the facts such as the rogatory interviews and what is said at libel trials, or the truth about the detectives hired by the McCanns, or the fact that no detailed accounts have ever been issued by the McCann fund.

I am afraid I do query what exactly it is you are trying to say. We know papers and TV don't deal exclusively in facts and we know they haven't reported the facts in the McCann case. We also know that secret injunctions have been granted in the McCann case (the order demanding all official agencies to co-operate with the McCanns, even when they were arguidos, which only came to light in the McCann v Leics Police case). But that is another example of a fact that was never reported properly in the UK media.

@Miraflores wrote:But I don't see how it alters the fact that the McCanns took/ are still taking action against Amiral in a Portuguese court but that our press choose not to publicise it. It is not quoting something defamatory - it's simply a matter of public record. It's a UK child who went missing and the parents are insistent that they want her name kept in the public. Why shouldn't we be told about how the McCanns choose to search, if that is what they are doing?

If the court action were in the UK the details would be publicised as a matter of procedure. However, the problem lies in the different libel laws in the two countries. The book may not be libellous in Portugal but still libellous in the UK. In theory, nobody in the UK should have read the alleged libel, because the book hasn't been published here (because it could be libellous!), therefore any branch of the UK media that draws attention to the court proceedings in Portugal would be introducing a potential libel to a new audience (in the UK) under English law. That could in itself be defamatory.The papers get round it by denouncing the book. Technically they could still be guilty of defamation, but it doesn't happen.Libel law in the UK is there to protect those who may be libelled. That isn't a bad thing.

@Okeydokey wrote:In any case, you clearly have no understanding of TV news. It includes lot of speculation and surmise by reporters who give viewers the background to news.Reporting on clear discrepancies in evidence is not libel. Neither is reporting on libel trials.

I have 100 per cent understanding of TV news because I have worked in it for two decades. How long have you worked in the media?Speculation on who is going to be the Christmas number one, or the government's policy on Europe is one thing; implying that someone has committed a crime is another. The first two cannot be libellous, the other one can.Regarding your next sentence, reporting on a libel trial in the UK would not be a problem, but this one isn't in the UK (see my other post)

@Mirage wrote:An interesting thread. Sadly I will not be contributing anything else for the forseeable as I have become unwell again. Keep up the good work folks and I will be reading as much as possible. Mirage

@Over The Hill wrote:Thanks for all your comments. Sorry some of you think I'm talking nonsense

Also, despite all their resources the PJ weren't able to solve the case and ended up shelving it, and Scotland Yard haven't cracked it yet despite 2 years on the job.

Yet our press are quite happy to report that the McCanns have been cleared.

Had the BBC repeated the ST story, they would have been dicing with defamation had it turned out to be untrue.

No, but all they needed to say was 'The Sunday Times leads on a Madeleine McCann story' and then turn to another paper, rather than completely ignore the ST.

However, reporting the disappearance as an abduction is poor practice and should have been corrected straight away.

But until recently, almost never was - it was always, always, 'abduction', even though the words disappeared or missing would have served as well.

The problem with reporting issues about Amaral's book is that the media can't mention something that might itself be libellous because it could be a defamation in itself (ie promoting something that is libellous).

I am sorry, I am not with you here. Why would it be libellous to state on [ x date] the McCanns took Sr Amiral to court to have his book banned but on [y date] Amiral had the ban overturned? That is a matter of fact. They need not offer a comment as to whether they have a personal opinion as to the validity of the ban.

When something concrete happens, I can assure you that the TV and radio news teams will report it

1. That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” deemed it necessary to threaten legal action against the authors of the Report.

2. That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” had "silenced" Exton and his investigators, by way of a letter from lawyers binding them to confidentiality.

3. That “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” prevented Exton and his investigators from handing the Oakley Report to Scotland Yard when requested to by them, without the Fund's explicit permission.

4. That the McCanns threatened the Report's authors with Legal Action if the Oakley Report was to be made public.

5. That the Smith sighting eFits were not included in the book "Madeleine" written by Kate McCann and published in 2011 ..

Being new to this, I had not realised that the Smith`s second statement to the Irish police about Smithman looking like Gerry happened only 12 days before the Doctor was removed from the case. All this is factual. I don`t think that the MSM have told the great British public this.

@mysterion wrote:Being new to this, I had not realised that the Smith`s second statement to the Irish police about Smithman looking like Gerry happened only 12 days before the Doctor was removed from the case. All this is factual. I don`t think that the MSM have told the great British public this.

The MSM will not print anything that goes against the saintly duo, FACT.

If it was not for the Portuguese translators we here in England would still believe the mccanns to be innocent..FACT

Disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann, Praia da Luz, Portugal 3rd May 2007On 28 December 2013, the Sunday Times issued an on-line "apology for any distress caused" while accepting that its readers may have misunderstood certain aspects of the articles dated 23 October 2013 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) with regard to the "Oakley Report" commissioned by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited”.

The "Oakley Report", including a set of "eFit" images, was commissioned at a cost of approximately £500,000 by “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited” which was compiled within a six month period during 2008 and completed in November 2008, by a team of private investigators headed by Henri Exton, former MI5 Undercover Operations Chief, on behalf of Oakley International.

Interesting report ! It should be entitled "Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited's under the Radar!"

The Fund is attracting attention of all quarters, all for the wrong reasons. Imagine 500K of the Fund money spent on this set of Detectives, and when the result was delivered, it ended up locked away in a secret drawer.

No one (not even Press and Police) can fail to notice that the "Madeleine's Fund : Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited" has served its money collection purpose, but fall short miserably of its obligations where search for Madeleine is concerned. In fact from the above accounts the Fund was hindering the search to find Madeleine when it concealed the Report and suppressed the E-fits.

@mysterion wrote:Being new to this, I had not realised that the Smith`s second statement to the Irish police about Smithman looking like Gerry happened only 12 days before the Doctor was removed from the case. All this is factual. I don`t think that the MSM have told the great British public this.

I hadn`t twigged the close connection either. I`m sure the MSM, like in Portugal, have put out the story that GA was removed from the case because he was rude to a journalist ..... as if !!!!!!

@Miraflores wrote:But I don't see how it alters the fact that the McCanns took/ are still taking action against Amiral in a Portuguese court but that our press choose not to publicise it. It is not quoting something defamatory - it's simply a matter of public record. It's a UK child who went missing and the parents are insistent that they want her name kept in the public. Why shouldn't we be told about how the McCanns choose to search, if that is what they are doing?

If the court action were in the UK the details would be publicised as a matter of procedure. However, the problem lies in the different libel laws in the two countries. The book may not be libellous in Portugal but still libellous in the UK. In theory, nobody in the UK should have read the alleged libel, because the book hasn't been published here (because it could be libellous!), therefore any branch of the UK media that draws attention to the court proceedings in Portugal would be introducing a potential libel to a new audience (in the UK) under English law. That could in itself be defamatory.The papers get round it by denouncing the book. Technically they could still be guilty of defamation, but it doesn't happen.Libel law in the UK is there to protect those who may be libelled. That isn't a bad thing.

I don't know why you keep trying to confuse people here about this. If you say that the UK Media are fearful of libelling the McCanns inadvertently by reporting on what Amaral's book says, why don't they simply report what the McCann's witnesses say? You aren't seriously maintaining are you that they could be sued for libel because they report on what the McCann's own witnesses say?

@Miraflores wrote:But I don't see how it alters the fact that the McCanns took/ are still taking action against Amiral in a Portuguese court but that our press choose not to publicise it. It is not quoting something defamatory - it's simply a matter of public record. It's a UK child who went missing and the parents are insistent that they want her name kept in the public. Why shouldn't we be told about how the McCanns choose to search, if that is what they are doing?

If the court action were in the UK the details would be publicised as a matter of procedure. However, the problem lies in the different libel laws in the two countries. The book may not be libellous in Portugal but still libellous in the UK. In theory, nobody in the UK should have read the alleged libel, because the book hasn't been published here (because it could be libellous!), therefore any branch of the UK media that draws attention to the court proceedings in Portugal would be introducing a potential libel to a new audience (in the UK) under English law. That could in itself be defamatory.The papers get round it by denouncing the book. Technically they could still be guilty of defamation, but it doesn't happen.Libel law in the UK is there to protect those who may be libelled. That isn't a bad thing.

I don't know why you keep trying to confuse people here about this. If you say that the UK Media are fearful of libelling the McCanns inadvertently by reporting on what Amaral's book says, why don't they simply report what the McCann's witnesses say? You aren't seriously maintaining are you that they could be sued for libel because they report on what the McCann's own witnesses say?

I have a recollection that one of the red tops did report some of what the McCann witnesses said, it may have the the Star, will have a look.

@Okeydokey wrote:In any case, you clearly have no understanding of TV news. It includes lot of speculation and surmise by reporters who give viewers the background to news.Reporting on clear discrepancies in evidence is not libel. Neither is reporting on libel trials.

I have 100 per cent understanding of TV news because I have worked in it for two decades. How long have you worked in the media?Speculation on who is going to be the Christmas number one, or the government's policy on Europe is one thing; implying that someone has committed a crime is another. The first two cannot be libellous, the other one can.Regarding your next sentence, reporting on a libel trial in the UK would not be a problem, but this one isn't in the UK (see my other post)

You keep - desperately - trying to claim that people here are criticising the UK media for not accusing the McCanns of a crime. But that is also nonsense. Nearly everyone here is simply asking the UK Media to report on facts.

The Daily Mail did in fact include some reporting of the case including what Amaral's defence witnesses were saying:

Former family liaison officer Ricardo Paiva told the court: 'What is in the book is based on our investigation and contains the professional and personal opinions of Goncalo Amaral as a police officer.

@Okeydokey wrote:You keep - desperately - trying to claim that people here are criticising the UK media for not accusing the McCanns of a crime. But that is also nonsense. Nearly everyone here is simply asking the UK Media to report on facts. SNIP

I suppose one of the big problems is that IF the UK Media do report the facts, then by implication they are accusing the McCanns of the Crime of Lying to police, = perverting the Course of JusticeDifficult to get out of that if they report "Story about broken shutters" AND shutters not brokenGerry Entering through the Front door "using his key" AND entering through the unlocked patio doorCurtains drawn back = wide open AND drawn tight closed and whooshingDoor slamming and curtains whooshing on a night when there was no wind. Pyjama bottoms changing colour white to pink and then back to WhiteAnd many many more some of which are documented in the e-bookhttp://freepdfhosting.com/9099bef539.pdfand many more, some of which are still not in full public discussion, but are being considered by many corresponding by private e-mails, as they are too close to the bone NOT to invoke an immediate response by Kevin and his Dark Lords and Masters.Since the Media do not know which one of each of those and the other egregious fabrications their dear friends Carter-Ruck will choose as the right one, and will sue and threaten impoverishment and imprisonment if you state the other one, they are perhaps reluctant to report anything very much.But let there be no doubt that they have everything stored up ready for the huge pull out supplements.

Besides, there have been so many contradictions that the media has no idea what is true and what isn't, so I don't blame them for not reporting what witnesses have said. None of their accounts can be trusted.

Which timeline is correct? Who knows? When was the alarm raised? Who knows? Was the patio door locked? Who knows? Did the checks take place when they were said to have taken place? Who knows? Crecheman and Smithman? Who knows?

Papers can speculate and report unreliable witness statements if they want to, but the broadcast media is subject to much stricter regulation and needs to be factual

Ultimately - and this is the point on which I don't understand the animosity towards the UK broadcast media on here - it's the police's job to solve crimes, not the media's

The media just report what the police have found. Some of the papers stuck their necks out and followed the PJ line in August 2007, and were sued. The TV newsrooms didn't make the same mistake because they are more cautious. Following their previous experience, it isn't surprising that the print media are more reluctant nowadays

There has been some shockingly bad reporting on this case since the very beginning, on TV as well as in the press, but it isn't the media's job to work out whodunnit

When the cops crack it, the media will tell you the whole story, believe me

@Over The Hill wrote:Besides, there have been so many contradictions that the media has no idea what is true and what isn't, so I don't blame them for not reporting what witnesses have said. None of their accounts can be trusted.

Which timeline is correct? Who knows? When was the alarm raised? Who knows? Was the patio door locked? Who knows? Did the checks take place when they were said to have taken place? Who knows? Crecheman and Smithman? Who knows?

What are you talking about? The BBC have reported extensively on the timelines created by the Tapas 9 and has given great credence to Tanner's 'sighting'. For 6 and a half years the version of events presented by witnesses supporting the McCanns has been presented by the Beeb et al as the gospel truth.

You're not making any sense.

And how is showing live interviews and statements from the McCanns and their witnesses outside the libel trial not potentially libellous, but screening statements from witnesses for the defence is? Because the former certainly has been done on British TV in the last few months but the latter hasn't.

Besides, there have been so many contradictions that the media has no idea what is true and what isn't, so I don't blame them for not reporting what witnesses have said. None of their accounts can be trusted.

Which timeline is correct? Who knows? When was the alarm raised? Who knows? Was the patio door locked? Who knows? Did the checks take place when they were said to have taken place? Who knows? Crecheman and Smithman? Who knows?

Papers can speculate and report unreliable witness statements if they want to, but the broadcast media is subject to much stricter regulation and needs to be factual

Ultimately - and this is the point on which I don't understand the animosity towards the UK broadcast media on here - it's the police's job to solve crimes, not the media's

The media just report what the police have found. Some of the papers stuck their necks out and followed the PJ line in August 2007, and were sued. The TV newsrooms didn't make the same mistake because they are more cautious. Following their previous experience, it isn't surprising that the print media are more reluctant nowadays

There has been some shockingly bad reporting on this case since the very beginning, on TV as well as in the press, but it isn't the media's job to work out whodunnit

When the cops crack it, the media will tell you the whole story, believe me

So this is the new proud bannerline: "When the cops crack it, the media will tell you the whole story..." Fortunately the Daily Mail didn't follow that craven line when addressing the Stephen Lawrence case.

You skipped over my previous post, probably because you had no answer - having erroneously claimed TV news is unable to report on foreign libel trials. For the avoidance of doubt:

You keep - desperately - trying to claim that people here are criticising the UK media for not accusing the McCanns of a crime. But that is also nonsense. Nearly everyone here is simply asking the UK Media to report on facts.

The Daily Mail did in fact include some reporting of the case including what Amaral's defence witnesses were saying:

Former family liaison officer Ricardo Paiva told the court: 'What is in the book is based on our investigation and contains the professional and personal opinions of Goncalo Amaral as a police officer.

I would personally think it's great if the UK media did not report anything whatsoever on the McCanns, no TV interviews, no newspaper stories which they know are rubbish. At least this would give the media some credibility.What annoys everyone is the fact that what they do print or televise is totally inaccurate or suspect or both.

The UK media could have reported on the libel trial in Portugal. That would have been factual, and not libellous. Simply reporting on who had said what during the various sessions of the trial. Without editorial comment, without using adjectives such as "blundering" or "shamed". Simple, straightforward court reporting. Happens all the time over here. Did we ever see a UK media story about the trial? (honest question, because I found myself having to read translated Portuguese reports to catch up on the proceedings).

@Okeydokey wrote:So this is the new proud bannerline: "When the cops crack it, the media will tell you the whole story..."Yes, the media's job is to report. That's what media means. Occasionally they will drive a case, but there's no need here because the PJ and Scotland Yard are already doing it. Let the experts get on with what they are paid to do, and let the media stick to reporting it

You skipped over my previous post, probably because you had no answer - having erroneously claimed TV news is unable to report on foreign libel trials. Please don't make assumptions about me. Making assumption is dangerous, as this case has frequently shown. I do have an answer, and it is obvious. The Tom Cruise case bears no similarity to the Amaral situation

You keep - desperately - trying to claim that people here are criticising the UK media for not accusing the McCanns of a crime. But that is also nonsense. Nearly everyone here is simply asking the UK Media to report on facts. And that's what the broadcast media do when it they believe it to be relevant. Check the archive material on BBC, ITN and Sky. Facts. You can't expect them to do a McCann update every day. And please don't accuse me of posting nonsense

The Daily Mail did in fact include some reporting of the case including what Amaral's defence witnesses were sayingYes that was a good report, but the Mail is an independent newspaper and can do what it likes. And Candyfloss has recently pointed out that the DM did one report and then stopped!I wonder why?

So that shows you are not right about what the UK Media can do. There is nothing to stop a TV broadcaster reporting in similar terms.I have answered this point several times. Repeating a libel is a libel. Fact. You keep talking of the legal right to report a court case but it is a Portuguese court hearing, which isn't covered by English law. The Mail chanced its arm and (presumably) got away with it. But legal action against the media inthis case has been sporadic and inconsistent. I wouldn't risk it unless it was agreed with the lawyers and judge overseeing the case

@canada12 wrote:The UK media could have reported on the libel trial in Portugal. That would have been factual, and not libellous. Simply reporting on who had said what during the various sessions of the trial. Without editorial comment, without using adjectives such as "blundering" or "shamed". Simple, straightforward court reporting. Happens all the time over here. Did we ever see a UK media story about the trial? (honest question, because I found myself having to read translated Portuguese reports to catch up on the proceedings).

Here is a report from Daily Mail, it is the last post on the page.........